Is reaching my calorie limit absolutely necessary?

Options
loriefolk
loriefolk Posts: 352
in Health and Weight Loss
I finally reached my calorie goal today and I feel so sick! I've never had a big appetite to begin with so eating a full 1200 cals today was a real shock!

Is it absolutely necessary to reach my calorie goal or it is okay to cut back and still be healthy?

Replies

  • melissapoulin
    melissapoulin Posts: 61
    Options
    yes... try to get as close to your calorie goal as possible, and make sure you eat any calories that you work off with exercise.... it is okay to be a bit under, but you need to eat at least that 1200 every day or your body goes into starvation mode if you do it for to long, and it will start storing fat
  • chelrieton
    chelrieton Posts: 5
    Options
    I was wondering the same thing!
    Thanks for posting and thanks to all who have/will reply.
  • AliciaJerome
    AliciaJerome Posts: 11
    Options
    So your body will start storing fat if you do not reach your calorie intake for the day?
  • Biahaitome
    Biahaitome Posts: 8
    Options
    Your body dosn't really go into starvation mode intill it has used up all of it's sources of fuel. "alcohol, glutamine, amino acids, and fat." Let's keep it simple.... Keep track of, your fats (eat healthy fats) and whole grains. Whole grains are a good source of fiber, and still have carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are essential because, your brain can only use carbs as fuel, and fiber, well we all know what that does....It keeps you full silly!! Get your head out of the gutter!
  • cuddlegrl
    cuddlegrl Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    Yup! As silly as it sounds its true. 1200 is the magic number. I stuggle with this too. I joke that I am the fatest anorexic since I never eat but have no problem gaining weight.

    I dont eat all of my exercise calories but I make a point to try and stay over 1200 net calories.

    I just started a program at work that focuses on nutrition. My dietitian agrees with the 1200 minimum and suggested drinking milk to increase calories when I am low. HTH!! :happy:
  • loriefolk
    loriefolk Posts: 352
    Options
    The milk advice is great! I am current only drinking 6oz of milk daily. I ONLY drink water and milk. I take in minimum 64oz of water daily, and I have just one 6 oz glass of 0% milk.

    Great way to add those calories in instead of eating them :)
  • littlelioness
    littlelioness Posts: 57
    Options
    It's hard to, but my body is in starvation mode...and it's not cool at all. I'm trying to get to 1200 a day as well...including exercise.
  • kittytrix
    kittytrix Posts: 557 Member
    Options
    I actually increased my calories after about a month from 1200 to 1360 and that helped kickstart my weightloss again. I think my body was starting to store the fat because at 1200 and working out as hard as I was, it was hanging on to as much fat as it could.

    It can be scary, but I think you should ask your doctor or dietician. I at least can only share my personal experience, but it's always good to ask a professional. BTW, there are registered personal trainers on this site as well. ;0)
  • VictorVegaJr
    VictorVegaJr Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    truthfully, yes it is. I never thought that eating more would be the key to losing weight but for me it is. I am a big guy and I normall eat maybe 1600 calories a day before because I thought if I cut down on food I would lose weight. i was wrong. I needed to eat moreand reach atleast 2300 a day so my body wouldnt go into starvation mode and store up everything I eat. If you dont eat enough your body will begin to store all the food you eat because it thinks you are going to starve it. You need to reach those calories so your body will metabolism will keep running all day.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    Starvation mode is largely a myth:

    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
  • runs4zen
    runs4zen Posts: 769 Member
    Options
    I struggle to get my total calories in every day too...1760 precisely--in order to maintain my current weight. The problem is, if I don't eat that amount, I start losing weight again. I don't think a day here or there is a big deal but eventually, if you don't want to keep losing weight, your body needs the calories. Like some PP said, for awhile, when I wasn't eating enough and I was still trying to lose weight, I went into a long plateau. So...I too would suggest talking to a dietician and getting the scoop on what's right for you. We can play with formulas and rules of thumb all we want but in the end, we're still individuals and our bodies do what they want sometimes!
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    Amen to that. Also however, it may be that if you're fairly small, your body actually does need fewer calories to function well. Averages are for, well, average people and those don't exist.
  • cuddlegrl
    cuddlegrl Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    A dietitian can tell you exactly the amount of calories your personal body needs. They have you breathe into a machine for about 20 mintues and calculate your metabolic rate.

    That will tell you if your body truly needs less calories than the standard min of 1200.
  • monkeysmum
    monkeysmum Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    the biggest loser uk trainer explaine dthis in a way i understood your body needs a minimum amount of calories a day to survive ie the 1200 if you dont eat those your body starts to eat the muscle and store the fat clinging to it as a self preservation means you should halways eat your daily calories mfp sets so 1200 and at least half of your exercise calories

    i also struggle to get there but some ways i manage is a piece of bread with a meal or a meal of pasta with alittle extra salads and veggies are great but most ar elow in calories sweetcoren is around a 100cals for the tin size i use also fruits are good but high in natural sugars making them mor ethan you might think and if all else fails they do great diet snack bars from biggest loser slimfast etc they are balanced and usually around 300 calories small enough to snack on when your not hungry but good enough calories to make up what your missing without resorting to bad calories ie chocolate scrisps etc
  • cuddlegrl
    cuddlegrl Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    Starvation mode is largely a myth:

    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

    I'm sorry but this will bring critics I know!

    I read this article and it is a blog. That means it's not a reliable source. I can create a blog that says the sky is not blue. Does that mean I am right? Nope. In addition she states no scientific evidence to prove her point. If she has cited sources to her claims she would be more reliable. Her opinion is not a reliable source. She does however have references at the end of her article. So I looked at those:


    Her first "Are You In Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth? (some typos but the best summary article I've seen)"
    - Typos? Ok they can happen.
    - This may appear to be a legit site, especially because it is a .org not .com but dont be fooled. It is a website funded by paying members. I looked at the profile of the president of the "company" Here is a quote "In 1975, Jerry joined his family's retail jewelry business. He soon became president of the company and owned and operated jewelry stores and Hallmark card and gift shops." His expertise is in retail. His expertise on nutrition is self learned- just like the bloggers information. This makes it an unreliable source. If I used this as a source for a paper I would get an F.

    Her second: The Starvation Myth (where I got my table from)
    -This is from weight watchers. Does that mean reliable? Maybe but remember weight watchers is a company looking for money and business. If you dont buy there products they dont make money. Qoute "The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint. " They may not agree with "starvation mode" but they do promote HEALTHY weight loss and do not promote eating to few calories. However they do not give you a number either of what "to few calories" is.

    Her third: The Truth about "Starvation Mode" (lots of research is discussed)
    - The research discussed is from 1950 and done on men
    - This is also a personal opinion not from an expert or clinical person and I made the point to the credit of that already.
    -This person speaks of starvation mode as something that happens within days. That is not starvation mode. Your belly grumbling is not starvation mode. It takes months and years to put your body into this type of mode.

    Her fourth: Is starvation mode a myth?- No! It's very real and here is the proof
    -She states that even though he promotes the truth behind starvation mode he is acutally pointing out her points against it.
    - This is a blog as well. I disagree with her that this article proves her point. I feel it does speak to the truth behind it. Manly because he sites a source for every claim. Not only does he site a source for every claim but he is cited medical sources. Sources that are coming from medical journals. His sources are sources that I would be able to use in a paper.


    I believe my doctor, my registered dietitican who works at the hospital I work for, and my certified personal trainer. When they tell me I am not eating enough calories and it is hindering my weight loss and making it harder that is who I listen too. I have been eating under 1000 calories most days for as long as I can remember, I am talking 10+ years. I have days that I go without eating at all. Then I have days that I feel like I eat everything. Have I lost weight? Some. And it comes right back as soon as I do eat. My body is confused. It stores fat because it doesnt know when it will get food again. In addition I havnt eaten the right foods. So my goals are to eat healthier and more of it.

    It this the case for everyone? Nope. If you go under 1200 calories will you put your body into starvation mode? Not unless you do it for a long time.

    Do you think your body is in starvation mode? Ask a professional. The information in my posts, journals, articles and blogs are general. They are not specific to your personal body.

    The biggest loser:
    My personal opinion is they are intentionally eating to few calories as a way to jump start weight loss not as a long term goal to weight loss or to keep it off. For a person who eats a lot and is extrememly obese if they reduce calories drastically they will drastically lose wieght. Eventually if that is maintained long term they will have problems.

    In addition to the weight loss concern with caloric intake- We need a certain amount of nutrients a day. I know I am not getting enough and I am working on that. But very low calories can provide very few nutrients unless carefully monitored.

    Please! To anyone reading this do your research and seek professional guidance if you are confused or unsure. We are all here to get healthy and to do it the best way possible. What works for me might now work for you.

    I joke that "I am the fatest anorexic you'll meet" because I eat very little and yet I am very big! I hope to no longer feel the need for that joke in the months and years to come.

    Forgive any typos I am in a rush:smile: I'm headed to the gym.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    Over on the Leangains site, the research based proof is there

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

    quoting:
    Truth

    Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

    Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

    Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

    Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.

    Origin

    I guess some genius read that fasting or starvation causes metabolic rate to drop and took that to mean that meal skipping, or not eating for a day or two, would cause starvation mode.

    link 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

    link 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717

    link 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292

    mind you, the emphasis on the leangains site is on intermittent fasting. So, while there is indeed a starvation response. It really doesn't occur in "normal" restriction of caloric intake. I do agree that getting sufficient nutrients IS an issue when restricting caloric intake. Even after a long time of caloric restriction, the effect of this (a metabolic rate of -8% would be offset by the effects of the caloric restriction itself)
  • cuddlegrl
    cuddlegrl Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    I think we just have a different idea of what starvation mode is and how long it takes to occur. It is not something that happens in a matter of days.

    It is fairly simple to find articles to prove both sides.

    I again recommend anyone concerned to consult a medical professional- as I did for me.

    I know that for me to few calories doesnt work.
  • monkeysmum
    monkeysmum Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    I think we just have a different idea of what starvation mode is and how long it takes to occur. It is not something that happens in a matter of days.

    It is fairly simple to find articles to prove both sides.

    I again recommend anyone concerned to consult a medical professional- as I did for me.

    I know that for me to few calories doesnt work.

    i was under the impression starvation mode occurs but based on what you eat not the calories you comsume.
    so a person on 2000 calories gained thru chocolate and junk was mor elikely to get it as opposed to someone on 1000 calories gained purely thru fruits and vegatables proteins etc

    in the end though all our bodies are differant so i am going on the assumption we find what works for us i dont do well on too few calories either but do struggle getting the 1200 somedays usually having to top up with a diet snack bar or energy drinks but my friend will only lose on 1000 calories a day plus exercise
    the exercise calories are also a problem if i eat them i dont lose but if i eat just my allowed calories and leave the exercise ones i lose around 1lb a week slow and careful being a vegetarian probably helps me more tho to get all the things my body needs without the excess in calories

Categories